campaignsfandomcom-20200223-history
Same-sex marriage
Requests for Editing this Page Please feel free to refine or strengthen any argument that you agree with. If a point has yet to be addressed, feel free to create a new topic. If a point is brought up that you do not agree with, attempt to disprove it on the other side's argument, or create a counterpoint. If we delete the agreements we do not agree with, this cannot succeed as a forum for free speech. Countering an argument you do not agree with in the same paragraph is not fair to the opposing argument. Respect every one in their right to formulate their own argument. Respect truly free speech. :If you feel a comment is in the wrong place, please move it instead of deleting it, unless it's just patent nonsense (remember, just because you disagree with someone doesn't make their comment garbage). --Anphanax 19:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :If a person disagrees with an argument, it is up to THEM to find a proper place to put it. It is not appropriate to put an argument opposed to marriage under the heading "In favor of Gay Marriage". --Nhcollegedem 19:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC) ::I think Counterpoint would be an apropriate sub-heading to use in this situation -- Blackdog 19:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC) ::Removing someone's comment without giving a reason is typically considered rude, as they may have spent some time on it. Don't destroy other people's work simply because you don't like where it was placed. --Anphanax 19:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC) ::It would also be good time to practice Good Faith, defined on wikipedia. In other words, if your comments vanish, don't be paranoid. People make mistakes, and people may have had a good reason to remove your comment (although it's important to leave a summary if you make that sort of edit). It's highly unlikely there's some conspiracy aimed at you or your comments.--Anphanax 19:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Gay Marriage Laws Around the World United States In the United States, the decision on whether to allow same-sex marriages has been left to the states. Currently, only Massachusetts allows same-sex marriages. Vermont and Connecticut allow Civil Unions, while Maine, New Jersey, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia have some spousal-like rights for same-sex couples. Canada Same-sex marriage is currently the law of the land in Canada, following decisions in cases brought before provincial courts, followed by a decision by the Supreme Court, followed by a bill passed in Parliament in 2005 under the government in power at the time. The short summary would be that all court decisions found that denying marriage to same-sex couples would violate rights guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court's decision invited the government to recognize this concretely with legislation. The bill subsequently did so. Religious concerns were raised during these events. Religious freedoms are protected under the Charter, and some religious groups object to same-sex marriage. These concerns were finessed by the assurance that no religious authority would be required to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony, if it did not wish to do so. Thus, any same-sex couple may get married, but they might not be able to have their marriage ceremony performed in certain places of worship. The newly-elected government has been promising to re-visit the same-sex marriage issue in Parliament sometime during the fall. Wikipedia has an excellent review at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada . United Kingdom Civil Partnerships Placeholder text, to be made more specific, describing the recently introduced institution of Civil Partnership which is open to two individuals of the same sex Switzerland Registrated Partnerships In 2005, 58% of the Swiss people aproved the new law on "registrated partnerships" (Partnerschaftsgesetz) in a public vote that introduces marriage-like partnerships for same-sex couples. On January 1st, 2007, the law will come into effect. Marriage remains reserved for couples of different sex. The law brings the same rights and responsibilities as marriages, though there are some exceptions: * the family names of the partners remain unchanged, though, in practice, it is allowed to use the partners name instead or in addition even in legal transactions. * the couple is not allowed to adopt children The parlimentary web site on the topic (german and french only): http://www.parlament.ch/homepage/do-archiv/do-partnerschaft.htm Arguments In Favor of Gay Marriage Separation of Church and State Marriage is a legal issue. The state recognizes marriage as a legal partnership in which two individuals enter, and grants them certain rights and privileges that go beyond those which unmarried individuals have. For instance, in the case of the death of one partner in a marriage, even without a will the estate of the deceased is usually automatically willed to the living partner. The definition of Marriage as purely religious is incomplete. This denies the reality of entirely secular marriages performed by Justices of the Peace. It also denies the presence of the many legal benefits afforded to married couples which are denied to un-married ones. In some marriages, the only true religious involvement is the performance of a ceremony to indicate the marriage is recognized by a church. Marriage may have started as a purely religious agreement, but its current reality is much broader. Equality Over 1,100 rights and responsibilities are afforded to heterosexual couples through marriage. Simple rights such as hospital visitation and healthcare coverage are easily available to heterosexual couples through marriage, but unavailable for same-sex couples. Denying same-sex couples marriage essentially creates a group of second-class citizens without access to the same rights as heterosexual couples. Freedom and Individual Liberty The United States was founded on the principles of Freedom, and Personal Liberty. Allowing same-sex marriages would be extending upon GLBT people the freedom to choose a life partner and be respected by the State. A same-sex marriage would not limit the freedom of heterosexual individuals, in any way. Limiting marriage to a heterosexual definition would be limiting the freedoms of a minority group of people. This is the classic example of the ‘tyranny of the majority’, which is the enemy of Democracy. Counterpoints Marriage is a State issue, not a personal or individual issue. People have the right to do anything they want, but "marriage" would not exist without the state, therefore you can't say that the States take a freedom from the citizens since that's not a "freedom" from the beginning, it's a State sponsored institution. The issue here is discrimination, not freedom, but that's a different discussion. -- Blackdog 19:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :This is patently ridiculous. Marriage existed long before governments, and it would exist without governments. It is merely a contractual agreement between two people to share their lives, children, and belongings. Whether or not the state exists to enforce this contract or it's merely by mutual recognition of others or private enforcement organizations is irrelevant. In addition, many people would claim that it's a church issue and not a state issue at all. --Kg6cvv 21:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :The 'In Favor' side already argues that Marriage is a legal status. You are not bringing up anything we haven't agreed with already by claiming that Marriage is a state issue. :Simply because GLBT persons are currently NOT free, does not mean that marriage is not an issue of personal freedoms. In the past, GLBT persons have not been free to marry the people of their choosing. Currently, that is changing, as many Nations and Massachusetts give GLBT persons this freedom. It is an issue of freedoms we don't have(and we feel we deserve), rather than freedoms we may loose.--Nhcollegedem 19:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC) ::To make it clearer: marriage is a privilege not a freedom. (personally I would categorize it as a punishment). If someone cannot get a "privilege" it's not a issue of "personal freedom" it's an issue of discrimination, I think this was my nitpicking point. It's incorrect to say that GLBT persons are not "free" to marry, the option doesn't exist, it's like saying that "I'm not free to divorce my girlfriend" (I'm not married), that option to divorce somebody that I'm not married to doesn't exist, however it's not a freedom issue. -- Blackdog 20:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Distorted View of GLBT People and Culture GLBT persons who participate in pride parades and other festivities are often considered to be representative for the entire GLBT community. This makes GLBT people seem extravagant and careless, characteristics which are difficult to unite with a serious marriage. It must be noted, however, many of GLBT people are not eager to express their sexuality. They consider it to be a personal issue. Such people could establish a very robust marriage and be very good at child rearing. These people do not fit a distorted view of GLBT people and are often not considered in debates. This type of discourse I believe forces advocates of GLBT rights into a rather conservative line of argument whereby GLBT people are made to prove their ‘normality’ or ‘respectability’ in order to assert their entitlement to equal rights. Straight people do not have to conform to any particular moral standard or norm in order to be entitled to be married. It is not the ‘sameness’ of GLBT people that should entitle them to marry whomever they please, it is their citizenship and equality as human beings which can not and should not be negated through the participation in parades or celebration of identity and sexuality.--Lampshade 16:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC) The Fallacy of 'Protecting' Traditional Marriage A common tactic used by those opposed to equal rights for GLBT citizens is to claim that they are 'protecting' traditional marriage. Allowing same-sex marriage would in no way limit existing, or future, heterosexual marriages. Heterosexual marriages would be as legal as they are today. Allowing gay marriage would simply mean that more citizens would have access to the rights and protections that are currently only provided to heterosexual couples. Sexual Orientation Is Not a Choice Human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed. It is a fact of human psychology that, while a person can choose to act or not act on a desire (depending on competing desires), one cannot choose what one desires. If choice of desires were possible, then everyone could choose to desire what they already have, therby fufilling those desires, although this still requires action to be based on the desire to see desires fufilled. It appears logically impossible for sexual orientation to be a choice. Framing the Argument -Many opponents of gay marriage like to describe the argument as a definitional one; they claim that the real issue is how we define the institution of marriage. This argument avoids the real question. As Jon Stewart put it in his debate with conservative Bill Bennett, "I think it's a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish." Arguments Against Gay Marriage Natural Order The intrinsically heterosexual nature of mammalian procreation Counterpoint Can someone please cite this correctly? Thanks From the American Psychological Association's "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality" (http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html): Yes, credible research indicates that sexual orientation is a choice, and there are numerous documented cases of individuals choosing to change their sexual orientation. http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet5.html :That pamphlet bothers me when it emphasizes that "societies that accept homosexuality have more of it and those that disapprove of and punish it have considerably less of it". This is junk psychology. Societies that disapprove of homosexuality aren't going to have as high of a rate of reporting. And while the behavior may be diminished, the inclinations may remain, repressed in favor of heterosexual impulses, or even in favor of asexuality, even if there is emotional damage. -Jjensenii 18:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Does it matter whether sexual orientation is a choice? When discussing the sexual orientation of people, there are myriad possibilities. People can not only be heterosexual or homosexual, but also be pedophiliac or zoophilic for example. Modern psychologists agree that this is also not by choice and definitely not voluntarily changeable. Promoting gay marriage simply because it is not a voluntary choice to be gay would also mean promoting (consensual?) relations between adults and children by the same argument. The involuntariness of homosexuality per se can therefore not be a valid argument and other societal factors have to be taken into account. That's a strawman argument if I ever heard one. The difference is children can not legally consent to sexual relations because they are not prepared to enter into such relationships. Mature adults should be free to choose another mature adult as their partner. Religious Imperative The need or otherwise of aligning secular law with the moral code of a majority religion Counterpoint C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity discusses marriage, and his argument - which I agree with so am (poorly) reproducing here - is that there should be a distinction made between civil marriages and religious marriages. With high divorce rate as a primary indicator, marriages as implemented by the government today are, in fact, civil marriages. We do not - and can be argued never have - held people to the oath of "till death do us part". In this sense, the religious side is just for show. Lewis asks for a large distinction to be made between religious marriages, specifically Christian, and civil ones. He sees no reason that civil marriages are held up to a Christian standard, and by making this distinction we can not only more effectively separate church and state, but also clarify exactly our intentions when getting married. --Bubaflub 10:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC) A first step in differentiating the two (civil vs. religious marriages) would be naming. Civil marriages could simply be called "civil unions," providing all the legal benefits of marriage, without any religious connotations. --Midian 16:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Marriage only has "religious connotations" to those who are religious. My marriage was performed by a judge and has no "religious connotations." The whole question of gay marriage is a legal issue. As has repeatedly been stated here, "marriage" is a legal term. In fact, it's a key term in hundreds of legal opinions and statutes. Unless you intend to rewrite the last 200 years of American common law, and hundreds of state and federal statutes, it is impractical to think that simply creating a new term "civil union" can fully embrace the legal rights created by the term "marriage." --Dan robinson 20:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Government Policy Options Civil Unions only Marriage is a very personal thing, and government should not be in the business of defining it. By defining all unions as civil unions, there is no longer a threat to the religious definition of marriage. Nor is there a threat of the government's enshrining discrimination by calling some people's unions "marriage" and others' unions something else -- people are free to call their own union whatever they like. This is frequently called "separation of bedroom and state." States Rights The Constitution nowhere grants the Federal government the power to regulate marriage, so with no amendment whatsoever it is already possible for individual states to do what they want about gay marriage. People who feel threatened by gay marriage are free to live in a state that does not allow it, and people who want it are free to live in a state that allows it. Remove Special Marriage Benefits A third possibility supported by a smaller group is the removal of marriage benefits from the law altogether. Marriage would be left as a religious or personal bond between whichever people choose to recognize it, but there would be no state or federal recognition of marriage. Giving of power of attorney and whatever contracts that marriage currently implies could be entered into explicitly by any two people (as they are now). This is probably not a practical option considering the widespread respect and influence that marriage has in our culture, but it may be useful to include in discussion to remember that conferring legal status to marriage is far from inevitable. Our society has decided that we want marriage to have legal status, so we also have to decide how to handle that so as not to confer unfair advantage to certain people. :Are you saying that "our society" cannot change its mind? Isn't that what the political process is all about? And movies have a huge cultural influence as well. Should the government be making movies? --Kg6cvv 21:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :If someone wants to make a point for gay marriage they have to: :# make a point why there's a need for "marriage" in general :# prove that that need holds if we extend the "marriage" meaning to gay relationships. Civil Unions due to Interstate Commerce Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Unites States Constitution states that Congress has the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Marriage is a legally recognized union. Given the nature of the accumulation of assets in today's society, there is a clear imperative to establish a universal definition of marriage. Couples who are married in a state that recognizes same sex marriages, but hold assets in one's that do not, would face legal difficulties that were intended to be mitigated by the above clause. Civil Unions between individuals is the only logical step. This would provide adequate protection for heterosexual, homosexual, and platonic couples. Rights By State New York In a 4-2 decision, the New York Court of Appeals said that the state's marriage law is constitutional, and clearly limits marriage to a union between a man and a woman. Judge Robert Smith said, "Any change in the law would have to come from the state Legislature." Party Platforms United States Republicans We strongly support President Bush’s call for a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage, and we believe that neither federal nor state judges nor bureaucrats should force states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage. We believe, and the social science confirms, that the well-being of children is best accomplished in the environment of the home, nurtured by their mother and father anchored by the bonds of marriage. We further believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage. Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform: A Safer World and a More Hopeful America, p. 83 Libertarians From the National Libertarian Party Web Sitehttp://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#sexurigh: The Issue: Government has presumed to decide acceptability over sexual practices in personal relationships, imposing a particular code of moral and social values and displacing personal choice in such matters. The Principle: Adults have the right to private choice in consensual sexual activity. Solutions: We advocate an end to all government attempts to dictate, prohibit, control or encourage any private lifestyle, living arrangement or contractual relationship. Transitional Action: We would repeal existing laws and policies intended to condemn, affirm, encourage or deny sexual lifestyles, or any set of attitudes about such lifestyles. Democrats We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families. In our country, marriage has been defined at the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there. We repudiate President Bush's divisive effort to politicize the Constitution by pursuing a "Federal Marriage Amendment." Our goal is to bring Americans together, not drive them apart. Source: Democratic Party Platform for America, 2004, p. 42 Perspectives (Share your feedback about this section's format/content on the discussion page!) As a way of starting a deeper conversation around Gay marriage, please post your "Perspective" below. This will give us a clear structure for looking at all the diverse and interesting perspectives we all hold. Each Perspective should be formatted as follows: "I am _______, and I believe _______." EXAMPLE: "I am a gay man, and I believe we should have the right to marry." EXAMPLE: "I am a businessman, and I believe that gay marriage is a source of new money for the economy." EXAMPLE: "I am a Republican, and I think marriage should be between a man and a woman." Let's keep this civil, thoughtful and friendly... and have fun! What's YOUR perspective? Remember to "sign" your comment with four tildes *I'm a 28-year old gay man, and I believe that the rights equated with marriage should be available to all people, so that marriage is just a religious or personal commitment, and the government does not need to be involved at all. :: * I am a heterosexual secular man, and I believe the government should not discriminate in marriages on the basis of gender but should instead endorse long-term social contracts between two people. :: * I am an 18 year old Christian, and I believe that the Biblical definition should stand- that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. :: * (Insert yours here) Category:Civil rights